The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS-0548-C Staff AnalysisSeptember 19, 1989 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7 FILE NO.: S-565-A NAME: Candlewood Commercial Site Plan LOCATION: Cantrell Road and Candlewood Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Flake & Co., Agent White-Daters & Associates, Inc. P. O. Box 990 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-8005 $74-1666 AREA: 16.7 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "C-3" PROPOSED USES: Retail PLANNING DISTRICT: 10 CENSUS TRACT: 42.03 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None SITE PROPOSAL: This applicant's proposal is to construct commercial facilities on a 16.7 acres site adjacent to Highway 10. This site will have mixed uses of grocery and retail. Total proposed building area to be constructed is +/- 125,320 square feet. There will be one primary structure with grocery, six structures with retail and four other structures without suggested use. A 40 foot setback to the buildings is provided along the Highway 10 frontage. A minimum of 15 feet is provided on the west and 12 feet on the east side for landscaping. September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISION t em No. 7 ,_.(Continued A. PROPOSAL.(R.EQUEST: This proposal consists of a five element site plan which is a large commercial building with one large user and the potential of several smaller users. There are four outparcels on the Highway 10 property which are indicated "unknown user". The site has a secondary access via Candlewood Drive on the west. The development proposes two points of ingress/egress on State Highway No. 10: one at the southeast corner and another between Lots 3 and 4. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: This property is currently undeveloped, and partially covered with natural foliage of the area. There are no structures. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 1. Provide traffic impact study and improvements to Candlewood Drive at Cantrell Road, including sidewalks. 2. Conform to Detention and Excavation requirements. 3. Changes in parking and driveways will be required in the outparcel area. This item should be coordinated with the Traffic Engineering staff. D. „I S,SUES/LEGA.L/TECHN.I CAL/DES IGN : 1. Lack of grading plan to properly evaluate exposure of slope. 2. Lack of signage, lighting and landscaping plans. 3. Specific treatment should be offered to provide minimum of two carrying lanes on Candlewood for initial development and future extension to the north. 2 September 19, 1989 SUBD I V.II S I ON Item No. 7 (Continued) E. ANALYSIS: F. Planning and Engineering staffs have performed a thorough review of this proposed commercial development and have some concerns. These concerns must be addressed before the staff can support the development. These concerns are: 1. The excavation and cut for the rear buildings. 2. The traffic generated by a development of this type (overloading of Highway 10 at this site). 3. The removal of all trees during grading. 4. Inadequate landscaping as indicated in the Highway 10 Plan (no berming). 5. The four outparcels and their impact on the corridor. 6. The lack of conformance with the objectives of the Highway 10 Plan. 7. The impact on the single family to the east (curb cut, buffering). 8. The total number of curb cuts. 9. Disregard for the site design precedent set by Safeway. 10. Lack of sign and lighting plans. The staff is concerned that this type of development with the outparcels which would set a pattern for small lot commercial development that might escalate over time creating strip commercial along Highway 10 with numerous driveways and traffic problems. Due to this potential traffic impact, the staff feels a traffic impact study on Highway 10 and Candlewood Drive must be pe•r f o rmed . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral of the plat to resolve the various questions. 3 October 3, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. D Continued ......... . ....... _(.........._........._.................... ).. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 7, 1989) The application was represented by Joe White and Mr. Rett Tucker. In the course of the presentation by the applicant, it was pointed out that the east side driveway should be aligned with Black Road coming up from the south and building envelops are much bigger than the proposed 3,000 square foot buildings. The developer agreed to clarify this issue. Also, staff suggested they include in the Bill of Assurance that the proposed building line would be far away from Highway 10 to allow future green space, specific dimension not determined. The discussion then moved to the comments of the Engineering staff. After briefly discussing these points, it was suggested by staff to submit written explanations for traffic issues. The discussion then moved to the area of landscaping and slope stabilization. Mr. White presented a grade plan and explained to the Committee the proposed slope stabilization and landscaping design. The question was then raised as to whether this site plan design is appropriate for the Highway 10 Plan. The discussion continued for an extended period. The Committee then closed the discussion. The item was forwarded to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING. COMMISSION ACTION: . ...... (September 19, 1989) The Planning Commission discussed this item in conjunction with Item No. 4 on the September 19, 1989 agenda. Therefore, the commentary included in their record on Item No. 4 applies to this matter. (It was noted that the Item No. 4 on September 19, 1989 agenda is Item No. C on this agenda.) PLANNING _COMMISSION ACTION: (October 3, 1989) The application was represented by Mr. H. Kemp, attorney; Joe White, engineer; and members of Flake & Company. Staff briefly presented the revised site plan and pointed out changes which concerned Planning Commission members on the September 19th meeting. 4 October 3, 1989 SUBDIVISION Item No. D Continued _.................. } Mr. Kemp, representing the developer and owner, said that all concerns had been resolved in the revised site plan. He added that the site plan reduced the number of outparcels to three, increased landscaping to 40 feet along Highway 10 and to 25 feet along the area adjacent to residential, and also increased the building setback to 100 feet. Commissioner Schlereth asked if a traffic signal would be installed. Staff explained that a traffic signal would be needed after all the site is developed. Mr. Mark Stodola, City Attorney, presented an overlay ordinance to allow the City to create "overlay districts" which would provide for more stringent development standards in addition to existing standards. David Jones, with Vogle Realty representing property owners along Highway 10, had some concerns about the relation of the new overlay ordinance to small lot developments of less than three acres. He asked the Planning Commission to waive the overlay ordinance for those properties. There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission and comments were offered by various individuals. The City Attorney agreed to review the draft stage of the overlay ordinance again before the October 17, 1989 meeting. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, expressed her concerns about traffic and development density on Highway 10. She stated that design is aesthetically unattractive and inconsistent with the scenic corridor. She also said that density would create hazardous traffic congestion. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department pointed out that a traffic light will be required to be installed at the developer's expense. Jim Lawson also added that Candlewood Drive will be built by the developer as shown on the preliminary plat. A lengthy discussion of the traffic light, outparcels, landscaping and overlay ordinance followed with comments from the City Attorney, Planning staff and Mr. Kemp. A motion was made to approve this site plan subject to the building of Candlewood Drive and installation of a traffic light by the developer. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 5